03/07/2001 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 7, 2001
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Harry Crawford
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 150
"An Act relating to insurance premiums for rental motor
vehicles."
- MOVED HB 150 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 11
"An Act relating to required notice of eviction to the dwellers,
tenants, and owners of mobile homes in mobile home parks before
redevelopment of the park."
- MOVED CSHB 11(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 150
SHORT TITLE:INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR RENTAL VEHICLES
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/26/01 0437 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/26/01 0437 (H) L&C
03/07/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 11
SHORT TITLE:MOBILE HOME PARK EVICTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CROFT, MURKOWSKI
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0026 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00
01/08/01 0026 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0026 (H) L&C, JUD
02/28/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/28/01 (H) Bill Postponed
03/07/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
AMY ERICKSON, Staff
to Representative Lisa Murkowski
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 408
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 150 on behalf of the sponsor.
CHARLIE MILLER
ANC Rental Corporation and Hertz Corporation
P.O. Box 102286
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 150.
CHARLES T. RUBIN
Rubin Fiorella LLP
90 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10016
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 150.
STAN RIDGEWAY, Deputy Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED)
P.O. Box 110805
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 150.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 11 as the sponsor.
ANGELA LISTON, Director
Department of Justice and Peace
Archdiocese of Anchorage
225 Cordova Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2409
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 11.
MACKENNA JOHNS
Alaska Manufactured Home Resident Advisory Council (AMHRAC)
P.O. Box 241592
Anchorage, Alaska 99524
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 11.
RANDY SIMMONS
JL Properties
1007 West 3rd, Number 101
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 11.
SAM MENESES
Catholic Social Services (CSS)
3710 East 20th, Number 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 11.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-28, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. Those present
at the call to order included Representatives Murkowski, Halcro,
Meyer, Rokeberg, and Hayes. Representative Kott joined the
meeting as it was in progress.
HB 150-INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR RENTAL VEHICLES
Number 0053
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the first item of business would
be to hear HOUSE BILL NO. 150, "An Act relating to insurance
premiums for rental motor vehicles."
Number 0107
AMY ERICKSON, Staff to Representative Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
State Legislature, introduced HB 150 on behalf of the sponsor.
She said it corrects an unintended consequence of 1999's Senate
Bill 87, which required motor vehicle rental companies to hold
funds for rental car insurance in separate trust accounts. That
requirement was impractical and nearly impossible for rental car
agencies because of the nominal money generated and the filing
logistics. These agencies deal in [car] rentals, not insurance,
she remarked.
MS. ERICKSON explained that SB 87 gave the director of the
Division of Insurance the authority to waive certain bond
requirements, but it failed to do the same for rental car
agencies.
MS. ERICKSON stated that HB 150 remedies the waiver omission by
eliminating the requirement that funds be placed in separate
accounts. The Division of Insurance and the rental car industry
have worked in tandem to create the language in the bill. She
noted that Charlie Miller, the rental car agency representative,
and Stan Ridgeway, with the Division of Insurance, were present
at the hearing.
Number 0217
CHARLIE MILLER, ANC Rental Corporation and Hertz Corporation,
via teleconference, stated that the intended provision of the
bill was to waive the requirement for the fiduciary account.
"It is [an] incidental insurance product to the contract for the
rental. There is no need to segregate the funds, like there is
for a normal independent agent." He remarked that a person
doesn't want to commingle those funds.
Number 0274
MR. MILLER referred to page 2 of the bill, [referring to line 6,
subsection (2)], where it says, "the carrier of the insurance
has to sign a letter saying that it agrees with the waiver." He
said he thinks the division will also testify that it protects
the interests of the public.
Number 0290
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked about the insurer's consent form.
Number 0316
MR. MILLER replied that he checked with the division but was not
sure of the final outcome, other than the fact that "they"
decided not to offer an amendment. He commented that there is a
normal procedure for "these kind of letters," and he surmised
that "they" figured it would work.
Number 0343
CHARLES T. RUBIN, Rubin Fiorella LLP, counsel for some of the
rental car companies, via teleconference, said similar
legislation passed in 30 states. Generally speaking, the
insurers provide the letter to the rental agency, and it is
maintained on file under rules already in place. The insurance
department would have access to [the letter] if it were
requested.
Number 0400
MR. RUBEN explained that no state requires funds to be held in
separate trust accounts. The amount of insurance funds received
by the rental companies is small, and it would almost be
impossible to keep separate accounts for each rental.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said there is a letter in the committee's file
that is signed by Bob Lohr, Director, Division of Insurance,
which indicates the division's support of HB 150.
Number 0489
STAN RIDGEWAY, Deputy Director, Division of Insurance,
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), via
teleconference, said overall, the bill properly balances the
public's right to protection, while keeping the cost of
regulatory compliance at a reasonable level.
Number 0585
MR. RIDGEWAY relayed that the insurer has the right to waive the
requirement for the account; however, the account may be large
enough that an insurer might not want to do that. There is a
perfect balance, and those waivers would be on record. If the
Division of Insurance does a market-conduct survey or a
financial examination, then [the division] would have those at
its disposal to make sure that everything was working properly.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if there are vehicle rental companies in
Alaska that put funds in a separate account.
MR. RIDGEWAY replied that under the current statute, companies
are supposed to do that; however, he couldn't say how that is
functioning at this time. He said it might be a question for
Charlie Miller.
Number 0603
MR. MILLER said after the implementation of the law [SB 87],
people have benignly neglected it, because everyone knows that
[the requirement] was unintentional.
Number 0647
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO declared a conflict [of interest] because
he is in the car-rental business. He said this bill is needed.
When SB 87 was passed and the unintended consequences were
realized, for a brief period of time it looked like it was
actually going to be enforced, he said. His company considered
stopping the coverage because it was such a small monetary
amount and the cost of abiding by the laws was not economically
feasible.
Number 0762
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER made a motion to move HB 150 out of
committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 150 was moved from the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 11-MOBILE HOME PARK EVICTION NOTICE
Number 0810
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the committee would consider
HOUSE BILL NO. 11, "An Act relating to required notice of
eviction to the dwellers, tenants, and owners of mobile homes in
mobile home parks before redevelopment of the park."
Number 0835
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 11, said it is a moderate solution to a growing problem in
Anchorage, and possibly in other parts of the state. Mobile
home units provide affordable lower-income housing, and were
previously [located] on the "marginal edge of towns." These
areas are now highly priced and are in the middle of town; land
use shifts as a town grows, which is what has happened in
Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that this is causing a lot of
concern among [mobile] home residents. In response to a couple
of high-profile purchases of mobile home parks in Anchorage,
Catholic Social Services (CSS) and the United Way have formed a
taskforce. Comprehensive information was pulled together by the
many groups that were invited [to participate]. The resulting
recommendation was to incorporate into statute the best practice
found in these purchases. For example, most of the people who
agreed to purchase the land allowed up to $5,000 as a moving
allowance for people to find other places to put their mobile
homes.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that HB 11 replaces the current
statute, which said a person had to be given a six-month notice.
The new requirement is that a developer/owner pays up to $5,000
in moving expenses, or the mobile home owner is given one year
to move. In addition, a person can't be evicted during the
winter months. He said the Archdiocese and CSS do a tremendous
amount of work to help people who are in the lower socioeconomic
strata of Anchorage.
Number 1055
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said like most things, there is a
perception and a reality. There is a true reality problem of
moving some of these homes and finding the money to do that. He
said the $5,000 isn't a lot for a developer, but can be a lot
for the individuals involved. He said he wanted to allay the
fears that the trailer parks would be bought up, that tenants
would have to move in the winter, and that they would have no
money to relocate their mobile homes. This bill gives a real
solution and a calming effect in the community.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI added that previously, she had worked in the
district court, where eviction proceedings are held. She
recognized that the judges were very conflicted when the
appropriate notices had been given and there was no defense.
The judge had to sign the judgment to evict, recognizing that
the trailer owner might be forced to move during the winter
months. She said on several occasions, the judge made a
determination that a trailer wasn't going to be moved during the
winter months, because it was not physically possible. This
helped raise awareness in Alaska that moving a trailer during
the winter months is more than just problematic, she said. A
section of this bill attempts to address this.
Number 1209
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said during his time on the [Anchorage]
Assembly, he saw a lot of issues come up when developers wanted
to develop land that would have required the displacement of
mobile homes.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER mentioned [a recent] article from the
Anchorage Daily News, which talked about helping tenants buy
space either by creating cooperatives or by arranging
condominium-type agreements. He asked if the sponsor had
considered these options.
Number 1254
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that he hadn't considered it until
he read the paper, but said he would be interested in pursuing
it with the committee. "We" wanted an incremental response for
things currently going on, and [for it to address] things likely
to happen in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded to a request to clarify that the
bill says that the developer would pay up to $5,000. He
referred to page 4, lines 5-6, "pays the actual disconnection
and relocation establishment costs, not exceeding the total of
$5,000." He said tenants couldn't go over that amount unless
the developer agreed. Furthermore, tenants couldn't
automatically get $5,000; they would have to prove actual costs.
Number 1396
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT, responding to a question about the ability
of a developer to go over the upper limit, agreed with Chair
Murkowski that a developer could compensate for a loss of
quality of life.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT recognized the two developers [who set the
standard] and said they are doing a responsible job; this is
what [the bill sponsors] chose to immortalize in statute.
Number 1498
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that the private sector was
conspicuous by its minor representation on the community
taskforce. He switched gears and asked Mr. Croft how he came up
with the $5,000 figure.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the floor seemed to be a rough
estimation of what some of the average costs would be; however,
a person could go over that amount when moving an older home.
He wanted to have some maximum so it wouldn't be an excuse for
litigation. The taskforce had also indicated that this was an
appropriate amount, he remarked.
Number 1597
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT, responding to a comment by Representative
Rokeberg about the value of trailer park land, said private
industry is doing it because money is being made.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said if [a park] had fewer than a dozen
spaces, "you would blow them right out of the saddle." Enacting
this law will destroy the property rights of that trailer park
owner.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT remarked that he didn't do a net-present-
value analysis, but said he is confident that the developers
had.
Number 1644
REPRESENTATIVE ROKBERG he said there is a difference if a park
owner has 44 or 400 units. There are a number of small mobile
home parks in this state, particularly in the rural areas. He
said there is a significant problem here without a quantifier
and a formula that is fair. This is total confiscation of
property and is against any privity of a state or contract, he
emphasized.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said there doesn't seem to be a significant
difference on the $5,000, whether it is 30 [trailers] or 5,
because one has to pay up to a maximum of $5,000 per trailer
anyway. On the other hand, the more obvious answer is to give a
person a one-year notice. He said he thinks there is a good
basis for using the $5,000 number, and for doing it per unit as
opposed to using a sliding scale.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG returned to the question of the value of
money. With smaller units, the sale and development time may be
crucial. The bill doesn't take into account smaller [trailer]
courts in the state. An exemption in the bill might be
considered, he said, for those [parks] with less than a certain
amount of spaces. He said at [a cost of] $5,000 a space, and
with 12 spaces, this totals $60,000; if a person is going to
sell the property for $80,000, that doesn't quite [add up], he
commented.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that "we" don't have any numbers to
indicate that there is a significant problem between big and
small parks. Government is involved in a lot of rental
situations, he said, such as when restrictions are put on the
notice that one has to give a tenant before eviction. As a
matter of good policy, [the government] tries to balance the
rights of the property owner and recognize that a tenant has a
right to some security in where he or she lives. This bill
gives people options.
Number 1851
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he sees a problem in creating an
exemption for a park of a certain size. He explained that an
owner of a fairly large park could carve out a little corner and
sell six or twelve unit spaces off that way, thus creating a
loophole.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER referred to apartment complexes, which are
usually rented month-to-month. He said if an apartment complex
[owner] decided to sell the building, the 30 days' notice would
be adequate. In some instances, a year's notice might be a long
time for some communities, and each community might have
different needs. Making this a local option through an enabling
bill, he said, would allow cities to decide what type of notices
they want to give, and what amount of money they want to pay.
He commented that land values are going to differ throughout the
state too.
Number 1951
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said "we" thought a lot along the lines of
the apartment complex [scenario]. This context is different.
With a mobile home, it takes more time to find another location.
There is justification for having another timeframe set up.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT remarked that there were also good reasons
for this being in state law to begin with. He didn't notice
anything that would preclude a municipality from doing more if
it wanted to. It is appropriate for the state to set a floor to
assure every resident of his or her rights, he said.
Number 2024
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said [the situation] could vary greatly
from one location to another statewide, but he thought this was
fair and adequate for Anchorage.
Number 2036
ANGELA LISTON, Director, Department of Justice and Peace,
Archdiocese of Anchorage, via teleconference, said she served on
the Anchorage Manufactured Home Taskforce last year. She
authored the portion of the taskforce report that dealt with the
legislative proposal. What was found in that proposal was very
similar to a statute in Oregon. To her knowledge, that statute
had not been challenged. She commented that she had submitted
some written testimony on this [to the committee].
MS. LISTON said the Archdiocese of Anchorage has been involved
with large residential populations, and particularly longtime
mobile-home residents. The Catholic Church and social service
[agencies] are often the safety net for the poor; "we" want to
seek out and prevent some of the root causes of (indisc.)
property in our community, she said. Affordable housing in
Alaska is one of those.
MS. LISTON said this legislation provides some protection and is
a balance. [A substantial amount of testimony was inaudible.]
Number 2115
MS. LISTON said one might want to consider establishing a
mobile-home-relocation fund, as other states have done. The
park owner, the mobile home owner, and the state all would
contribute to a fund so when a "mass displacement" happens,
there are funds available for relocation.
Number 2130
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if the $5,000 amount was discussed by the
taskforce.
MS. LISTON said it wasn't. She said the Oregon statute amount
is $3,000, which would be inadequate when moving a mobile home
in Alaska. The $5,000 amount wasn't a result of any study of
relocation on the part of the taskforce, she said; talked about
it in general [terms]. She speculated that the cost of
disconnecting, relocating, and establishing one of these homes
would exceed $5,000.
Number 2168
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if the taskforce had considered the
issue of availability of mobile home space. He asked if there
was a greater availability in other states.
MS. LISTON said she wasn't really familiar with that and didn't
know the answer. Answering another question, she said she did a
cursory study of statutes around the nation and doesn't recall
ever seeing anything that adjusted [the cost of relocation
compensation] according to the size of a trailer park.
Number 2234
MACKENNA JOHNS, Alaska Manufactured Home Resident Advisory
Council (AMHRAC), mentioned the cooperative or condominium
option for mobile home residents to be able to purchase land.
One of the developers is in the process of designing a
cooperative site, she said, and "we" are putting together a
package to develop a second one. The Alaska Manufactured Home
Resident Advisory Council is working on this because it will
happen over and over again until [mobile home owners] can own
the land.
MS. JOHNS remarked that the trend in the Lower 48 is toward, not
away from, manufactured housing. Mobile homes are being
"snatched up" by people from the Baby Boomer generation. She
had information about mobile home parks in different areas of
the country. She said "we" are working on having spaces for
mobile homes [in Alaska], and hope to have it in place soon.
MS. JOHNS commented that several people have moved, and the cost
has been a little higher than the $5,000 figure, although she
didn't have a complete, bottom-line figure. "We" have to
balance the needs of the homeowner against the needs of the
developer, and the $5,000 is a good start. If it exceeds
$5,000, the municipality or a developer might be able to add
something, given certain circumstances.
MS. JOHNS clarified that during a regular eviction for cause,
not for relocation or development, one ends up evicting the
people, not the home. Developers can give notice so [tenants]
can get out during the summer months, although a trailer can't
be physically moved in 30 days. The six-month [requirement] was
put on the books after 1984; before that, it was 90 days, which
was not sufficient. This bill would add another six months if a
developer chose not to compensate, and [AMHRAC] thinks that is a
fairly reasonable approach.
Number 2395
MS. JOHNS said in terms of availability of space, [AMHRAC] hopes
to have more affordable housing soon; mobile homes represent a
very big chunk of Anchorage's affordable housing.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if the taskforce identified the
number of people renting trailers.
MS. JOHNS said it is overwhelmingly owners. She clarified that
all tenants rent the space on a monthly basis, some own the home
sitting on the rented space, and others rent the home sitting on
the rented space. She clarified that a person could own a
couple of mobile homes and rent them out on a monthly or yearly
basis. She said she didn't know of any park in Anchorage that
rented spaces other than month-to-month. She (indisc.) roughly
10 percent are renting, or 4 out of 44 mobile homes.
TAPE 01-28, SIDE B
Number 2461
RANDY SIMMONS, JL Properties, via teleconference, noted that his
company is one of the two developers currently redeveloping
mobile home parks in Anchorage. He said the company is looking
at building a ten-story, 200,000-square-foot office building on
a portion of the Plaza 36 mobile home park. [The company's]
first choice was to buy other land, he said, but after five
attempts, it wasn't possible. Early on in the process, it
became apparent that [JL Properties] didn't know what it was
getting itself into.
MR. SIMMONS stated that [after] talking to the mobile home park
owners, [JL Properties] went to the United Way. After looking
at the mobile home taskforce report, the company decided to use
$5,000 as the amount of compensation; CSS was going to manage
the pool and provide case-management services.
Number 2374
MR. SIMMONS said [this was done] because it became apparent that
there were a number of people who didn't need $5,000, and some
needed more, which is where the pool concept came in. He used
one of the tenants as an example: all the tenant wanted was
five months of free rent, and the tenant would move the home.
The five months of free rent totaled roughly $1,500, which left
$3,500 in the pool for someone who might need more.
MR. SIMMONS remarked that CSS has been working with the 42
tenants in phase one. [JL Properties] has committed to a
similar compensation package for phase two; phases three and
four will not be commercial redevelopment, but multi-family
housing. [JL Properties] couldn't make that commitment because
the company has to look at what the project will support.
[Building] a 10-story office building will support much more
than [building] multifamily affordable housing. The company
will offer some level of compensation for the multifamily phase,
but he didn't know what that level would be yet.
Number 2324
MR. SIMMONS explained that the first phase [would begin] by the
end of April, and phase two, by the end of June of this year.
House Bill 11 is workable for the developers in Anchorage, he
remarked. The [developers] who can afford it will give a 180-
day notice and also compensate people; those that can't afford
that amount of money will be giving a one-year [notice]. He is
concerned that if the amount [in the bill] is larger than
$5,000, developers will [be more apt] to give the 365-day
notice, and the tenants won't have compensation to move. He
believes the bill is a fair balance for tenants and developers.
Number 2260
MR. SIMMONS said there would be 45 [mobile homes] displaced in
phase one, and 50 in phase two, in a two- to three-year process.
There will be roughly 100 [mobile home displacements], and the
park has 222 sites, he remarked. Phases three and four will
include an additional 100 spaces.
MR. SIMMONS clarified that the money [in the pool] is for the
owners, but it doesn't preclude that in some cases, money may be
made available for the tenants.
Number 2209
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to phases three and four and
the building of multi-tenant projects versus higher "mid-rise"
buildings in phase one and two.
MR. SIMMONS confirmed that the assembly approved rezoning half
of the park into a "B3", and half into "R4." Phases three and
four are the R4. Responding to a question posed by
Representative Rokeberg regarding whether the property was going
to be reused for only multi-tenant purposes, Mr. Simmons
couldn't afford to pay the $5,000 cash compensation, Mr. Simmons
said at this point in time, it will probably not support the
$5,000 [compensation]. He said he wasn't positive, but with
affordable housing, one has to look at grant programs working
with the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD); it's hard
to offer compensation at that level, with these types of
projects, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Simmons when a mid- or high-
rise [building] was last built in Anchorage.
MR. SIMMONS replied that it was probably 18 years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said projects don't come along every day
where a developer could afford to do what is being considered
now.
MR. SIMMONS agreed. He noted that Alaska Village has a project
that is a higher-level development, which may be able to afford
that [compensation]. There is a difference between commercial
and residential [property], he emphasized. Responding to a
question about the density of Plaza 36 and rental sites per
acre, Mr. Simmons said [JL Properties] has six [sites] per acre
right now, and with the R4, there will be 25 to 54 [sites] per
acre.
Number 2095
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if those would be mobile home
spots or new apartments.
MR. SIMMONS answered that those will be multi-family apartments.
When asked whether the lots are typical in size, he responded
that he is not aware of that yet because it hasn't been re-
platted. [JL Properties] is not a mobile home developer, owner,
or dealer, he remarked.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said with phases three and four, she assumes
that the company will give the mobile home owners a 365-day
notice, if the compensation factor doesn't "pencil out."
Number 2058
MR. SIMMONS said yes, he is sure the company will give 365-days'
notice as well as some level of compensation. Responding to a
question about whether it is common for developers to warehouse
land, responded that it depends on when the land is purchased
and the price. At this point in time, one could get a fairly
large tract [of land] at a reasonable price; it might be
warehoused for a short period of time [around the Anchorage
area]; however, most of the land tracts are held by larger
corporations looking to develop them for their own uses.
Number 2010
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that typically, real-estate
developers don't warehouse property, and there is a short
turnaround time. [JL Properties] is building a multiphase
multi-type development, and it is unique in the sense that the
burden on phases two and three is carried by the first phase and
the potential profits from that building.
MR. SIMMONS said he agreed.
Number 1991
SAM MENESES, Catholic Social Services, via teleconference, said
he is one of two representatives that have been involved with
the relocation of manufactured homes at [Plaza] 36. There was a
memorandum from Stephanie Wheeler, Director, Catholic Social
Services, and he commented that he was sitting in on her behalf.
MR. MENESES stated that relocating manufactured homes is
challenging, and he asked the committee to consider a bill that
would give residents between a 180- and 365-day [eviction
notice]. Planning is a major factor in finding suitable housing
in Anchorage and especially a place to put a manufactured home.
Of the roughly 360 spaces that Catholic Social Services found in
Anchorage, each had different challenges.
Number 1889
MR. MENESES said CSS looked at some of the costs involved in
moving a manufactured home, and of the 13 homes that got
estimates, the [average] cost was $3,500, which doesn't include
disconnections or associated costs with the reestablishment of
the unit. He said a $5,000- to-$8,000 range could be expected.
MR. MENESES commented that the [advantage of] the option of
having relocation costs is that two or three of these residents
are considering some type of a land- or home-purchasing option.
He encouraged the legislature to consider looking at a fund that
residents could pull from, much like that in Oregon or
Washington. He remarked that most of the associated costs come
into play when something has to be replaced, such as a hot water
heater or the lining around a home after it has been set up.
MR. MENESES stated that he is involved with the pool set up for
the 42 homeowners at Plaza 36. Homeowners can draw funds from
the pool, and CSS does an individual assessment for each family.
"We" establish a file (indisc.) with [the family] before
actually spending the money, so "we" are not halfway through the
process before realizing that "Plan A," for example, is not
going to work for a particular family.
Number 1674
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if CSS is actually finding out who can
move the trailer and then paying the mover to do that.
MR. MENESES answered affirmatively. He said CSS is reimbursing
tenants individually if they can provide receipts showing actual
expenses paid. For example, some of the tenants had to pay for
code compliance inspections out-of-pocket, and then [CSS]
reimbursed them.
Number 1627
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the diversity of witnesses has shown
that this bill is common ground. Catholic Social Services and
the Archdiocese have done a great job helping people find homes,
he remarked. He questioned Ms. Johns about the development plan
for Alaska Village.
MS. JOHNS said she understood that it would be a large "box"
store with several properties [used for] restaurants and a mixed
commercial [area] with doctors offices, office suites, and a
residential component, with the possibility of the west side
being designated (indisc.) middle school and a recreation site.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that there is a lot of
development going on at Alaska Village that can support this
level of compensation; however, if it couldn't, it would just
require giving [tenants] a longer notice. He pointed out that
the taskforce had other recommendations, such as [one to] change
zoning ordinances, which could be mandated from the state level,
saying that before a person could change any zoning, one would
have to know that there was additional space elsewhere. He
commented that this seemed somewhat onerous for the
municipalities and difficult for the legislature to do at this
level. The last recommendation was to collect a tax or fee on
either the owners of the property or the owners of the mobile
home. He had chosen the alternative with the least impact on
development. "We" thought we would put the best industry
recommendations into practice, he explained.
Number 1450
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the amendments are ideas that came up
in the Senate hearings on the companion bill. He distributed
proposed Amendment C.1, 22-LS0117\C.1, Kurtz 2/28/01 to the
committee, which read:
Page 4, lines 4 - 5:
Delete "if the mobile home park owner or operator
finds a suitable place to relocate the mobile home and
pays"
Insert "if a suitable place to relocate the
mobile home is found and the mobile home park owner or
operator pays"
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that the "developer interests" had
said that although they were fine with the concept, in actuality
it was drafted to say, "the owner or operator finds a suitable
place." He added that sometimes [developers find a suitable
place], sometimes [developers] have someone else do it, and
sometime the owner of the mobile home does it. The amendment
would change the bill to, "if a suitable place is found," so the
[developer] doesn't have the sole obligation for finding it for
them.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to [page 4, lines 5-6] in the
bill, which read, "and pays the actual disconnection,
relocation, reestablishment costs, not exceeding a total of
$5,000." He said the taskforce's recommendation was phrased a
little differently: "the owner/developer pays the dislocation,
relocation, reestablishment cost of the mobile home or $5,000,
whichever is less."
Number 1400
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the taskforce stated it more clearly:
a [developer] has to pay the lesser of the two, versus the
actual [cost], and it cannot exceed [$5,000]. He said the
legislature could easily say, "pays the actual disconnection,
relocation, and reestablishment costs, or $5,000, whichever is
less." [A developer] could pay more; this is solely the
requirement to get them out of giving the yearlong notice.
Number 1260
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to proposed Amendment 22-
LS0117\C.3, Kurtz, 3/7/01. He said the language allows the kind
of pooling that was being talked about. Amendment C.3 reads:
Page 4, line 6, following "$5,000":
Insert "If the change in use of the land will
require relocating 10 or more mobile homes, the mobile
home park owner or operator may contribute to a pool
$5,000 for each mobile home being relocated, and the
pool shall pay the actual disconnection, relocation,
and reestablishment costs of each mobile home;
however, the pool may not be required to pay more than
$5,000 in actual costs of disconnection, relocation,
and reestablishment for a mobile home."
[Amendment C.3 was withdrawn later.]
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred back to Representative Rokeberg's idea
of [giving] exemptions for small developments. She referred to
proposed Amendment [C.3] and said it refers to moving ten or
more [mobile homes].
Number 1203
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that this is an insert, so it
doesn't delete the other requirements. He shifted gears and
said Amendment C.2, 22-LS0117, Kurtz, 3/7/01, was a result of
the feedback in the Senate; the dates in the bill hadn't
corresponded to when the ground was likely to be frozen, so the
Senate urged shifting the date. Amendment C.3 reads:
Page 4, line 1:
Delete "April 1"
Insert "May 1"
Delete "September 30"
Insert "October 15"
Page 4, line 17:
Delete "April 1"
Insert "May 1"
Page 4, line 18:
Delete "September 30"
Insert "October 15"
Number 1155
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the impact a change would
make, either from April 1 to May 1 or from September 30 to
October 15. He asked what the difference is in the maximum
amount of time a person would have [to move out] between the
current bill and the suggested amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the underlined part, modified
on page 4, where a quit date has to fall in the calendar. He
said, "with a quit date during the calendar year following no
earlier than [April 1] and no later then [September 30]," "we"
wanted the quit date to be in the summer, so there may be some
extension based on when the date of notice is.
Number 0953
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that if notice were given on
December 25, a [developer] would have six months if he or she
were willing to pay [$5,000]. He commented that the proposed
amendment does no harm.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred back to proposed Amendment C.1. She
said it is reasonable, because she doesn't think there is an
expectation that the mobile park home owner or operator would go
out and attempt to find a suitable accommodation for the mobile
home owner.
Number 0894
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER made a motion to adopt Amendment C.1, 22-
LS0117\C.1, Kurtz, 2/28/01. [Text provided previously]
[There was discussion regarding committee amendment protocol.]
Number 0826
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
He expressed concern about the vagueness of suitability
[concerning] the mobile home owner.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thought it could be written any
number of ways, but it is suitable in terms of an objectively
reasonable place to put a home. In the final analysis, if a
person really got to that level [of dispute], a court would say
either yes, that was a suitable place, or no, it wasn't. He
said he meant it to be generically suitable, not giving either
side the call on whether the place was or wasn't suitable.
Number 0724
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said usually, if the developer is going
to pay the $5,000, he or she is going to need an open-window
timeframe, preferably around June 1, so he or she can get the
[construction] machinery going. The developer might have a
hold-over tenant beyond the six months who can't find a suitable
place because it isn't as good as what he or she has now.
Consequently, the developer loses the whole deal because of the
timeframe. He asked what the courts would consider suitable.
This allows discretion on the part of the tenant to [determine]
suitability, he said, and could "mess up" the whole development
deal; in addition, the developer is giving the person "ransom
money" to relocate.
Number 0561
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that it is a legitimate concern,
and it is the reason why "we" didn't put in language that said,
"another place acceptable to the mobile home resident, or
suitable to them, or approved by them." The ultimate arbiter
would be a judge, he remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the length of time required
to get a judgment on suitability. He said he was astounded that
so many people came for the presentation at Plaza 36, and he
commented that people will try to "game" it as far as possible,
particularly if a person is not happy about where he or she is
going.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that this would be an unlikely
situation but there are quick remedies.
Number 0373
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said in this situation, a person could file an
unlawful-detainer action, which is an expedited hearing, and be
in court as soon as notice is provided; a determination could be
made within a week. Under Title 9, the landlord tenant
[section], she would think that a person could get an unlawful-
detainer action to make a determination right then, to determine
whether it was a suitable place to relocate the mobile home.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Section 1 and said the Uniform
Residential Landlord and Tenant Act specifically talks about
unlawfully holding back force.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he had introduced the legislation
because he, too, was at Plaza 36 when JL Properties arrived.
Many people testified about the difficulties in finding another
place for their homes; there was a combination of real problems
and a lot of fear about what would happen. Letting them know
that the practice followed in the Alaska Village and in the
Plaza 36 [developments] by responsible developers will be
followed all the time will go a long way in ensuring
constituents in the Spenard Area that they have a safety net.
He said he took an entirely different message away from the
meeting than Representative Rokeberg had.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that he didn't mean to
characterize that meeting as an example of "gaming" or
indecision. He said his point was that there was a good deal of
emotion, and people were concerned about their homes [and the
situation that occurs] when people are emotional and have the
right under law to make decisions about suitability, he
explained.
Number 0100
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said "we" have to remember that local
communities have certain zoning requirements for mobile home
parks. For example, the park strip is not a suitable place for
mobile homes to relocate.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said the developer could say if an
agreement can't be reached in six months, then the year kicks in
and a [mobile home owner] wouldn't have the $5,000 relocation
fee; it is in someone's best interest to work with the
developer.
TAPE 01-29, SIDE A
Number 0115
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said in those instances, most developers
would have an option and probably wouldn't close on the property
to avoid it. If those things don't come to pass in a timely
manner, the deal would fall through.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT returned to the issue of suitability. He
said both the current [bill] language and proposed Amendment C.1
use [the term] "suitable", the [amendment language being],
"owner finds, [or] anyone finds [the location to be] suitable."
Number 0179
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked for further discussion on Amendment C.1,
and inquired whether there was still an objection. There being
no objection, Amendment C.1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said "we" had [testimony from] a
representative from the private sector, the state's biggest
private developer, who has a "deep pocket" and has already
agreed to do what is being proposed by this bill. There were no
real-estate brokers, representatives of the manufactured home
associations, or mobile home park owners.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that Bob Mayor from the Alaska
Manufactured Homes Association [was on the taskforce], and there
was also representation from Representatives Kott and Mulder.
Number 0325
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES made a motion to adopt Amendment C.2, 22-
LS0117\C.2, Kurtz, 3/7/01. [Text provided previously]
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected, saying he thought it pushed
[the eviction date] back, although he recognized that it seemed
to reflect the "seasonality" of the Anchorage area. He said if
a person gave notice in May, the [timeframe] could go all the
way to October 15 of the next year.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that there will be an extension
if a [developer] chooses a one-year deal and doesn't pay any
relocation expenses; picking the wrong date for notification
could extend that period over a year. For example, if notice is
given on June 1 and the developer doesn't pay compensation, [the
eviction date would] be June of next year.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO explained that if a [developer] did pay
expenses, and it was June, then it would be into December, which
is [an impossible time for moving] and the date would have to be
pushed back to May 1.
Number 0517
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES remarked that a person couldn't do
construction during the winter months anyway, because the ground
is too hard. It would be advantageous for [tenants] to move
when feasible, once they have the money.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that winter construction
techniques are used in Anchorage and farther south.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said if the intent is so people don't have
to relocate when there is snow on the ground, October 15 is
fairly late everywhere except Anchorage, because the snow comes
a lot earlier up north.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI used the example of Wrangell [in Southeast
Alaska] and commented that there isn't a winter in other parts
of the state; one could probably move a trailer anytime during
the year. "We" are locking the whole state into an Anchorage
winter schedule, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that in some places it is impossible
to [move] in the winter, and [in other areas of the state] it is
just difficult. Clearly, the more extreme the example, the more
the courts will enforce equity.
Number 0736
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the committee should defer to
Fairbanks as the baseline.
Number 0772
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the legislature is changing two
sections [of statute]. He referred to Section 3, "in the case
of an eviction, given a quit date, no earlier than or later
than". He said mobile home owner shall be given at least 365
days' notice, or longer if [the end date fall in the winter].
He clarified that [the extension] applies to both the one-year
and the six-month [eviction notices].
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to proposed Amendment C.2 and
remarked that the October 15 deadline is a fair compromise.
Tenants get an additional 15 days.
Number 0867
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to conceptually amend
proposed Amendment C.2 [thus returning to the original bill
language on page 4, lines 1 and 18] by deleting "October 15" and
keeping "September 30", based on the subarctic conditions
[experienced] by people in the North. This conceptually amends
the part of Amendment C.2 that reads:
Page 4, line 1:
Delete "September 30"
Insert "October 15"
Page 4, line 18:
Delete "September 30"
Insert "October 15"
Number 0965
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES objected to the conceptual amendment. He
said he didn't feel comfortable changing the dates without
knowing the [original intent].
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thought the proposal came from the
tenant association; he also mentioned that Senator Leman had
requested the pooling [amendment]. He remarked that the [the
Senate] is considering adopting amendment C.1 as well, and added
that he didn't think there was any "magic" to either date
proposed.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he had no problem with the conceptual
amendment and [withdrew his objection].
Number 1083
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if there was any objection, and hearing
none, announced that the conceptual amendment to Amendment C.2
was adopted.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI stated that the last amendment to consider would
be Amendment C.3, 22-LS0117\C.3, Kurtz, 3/7/01, [text provided
previously], which relates to the pooling arrangement. She
asked the sponsor if the pooling [arrangement] was only
applicable if [a developer] had ten or more mobile home [lots].
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said an argument could be made for pooling
[arrangements] in "lower situations." Responding to whether the
bill, as presently drafted, would allow for pooling, and whether
it was necessary to have this [language], he said he didn't
believe so. He said if a [a developer] is going to pay what he
or she would like in terms of actual disconnection, relocation,
or establishment cost, it could cost a lot less for one and a
lot more for another, because this isn't a maximum, just a
minimum.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she understood the pooling [language] to be
discretionary because it says "the park owner or operator may
contribute to a pool". She asked about the necessity of this
[language].
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he wasn't [sure] either. If
[pooling] was allowed before, and this [amendment] makes sure
that it is allowed, there [are possible complications if a
developer] has eight units; now the language says if its ten, it
can be done; the courts might interpret that to mean that if
it's under ten, a person couldn't.
Number 1356
CHAIR MURKOWSKI withdrew Amendment C.3.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred back to page 4 [of the bill],
lines 5 and 6. He suggested that instead of saying, "pays the
actual disconnection, relocation, reestablishment costs, not to
exceed [$5,000]," it could say, "pays the cost or $5,000,
whichever is less." The legal idea is that one has the right to
waive whatever one wants.
Number 1510
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he thought there was some protection
here because the word "actual" [was used], so it couldn't "drag
out."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG cautioned the sponsor "not to take the
cap off." He suggested maybe taking out the "not to exceed"
language, but said anything that implies to the courts that
there would be more than that due legally might [pose] a real
problem, and would injure the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 3, line 31, "the mobile
home dweller or tenant and the mobile home owner shall be given
a quit [date]." According to the testimony, he said,
approximately 10 percent or 4 of the 42 tenants at Plaza 36 were
renters; therefore, there is a bifurcated situation. One could
pay $5,000 to the tenant, and $5,000 to the [mobile home] owner,
when in fact [the intent of the bill refers to] the actual
disconnection and relocation [costs].
CHAIR MURKOWSKI clarified that the intent is that a person has
to give notice to not only the owner, but also the individual
living in the mobile home.
Number 1607
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT clarified that it doesn't really matter if
a mobile home is being relocating to a suitable place, or
whether it is a [rental] tenant or the owner who lives there;
[the developer] has to pay to have it moved, he said, pointing
out that the notice provisions say owner or tenant.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he had an amendment [to offer] but
was concerned about what the impact would be on the language.
He referred to Plaza 36 and said he didn't know if it was
consistent throughout the industry to have six lots in an eight-
per-acre [area]. He had done some calculations on the price per
acre and the $5,000. Assuming there were six lots per acre, he
said, that would be $30,000 in relocation costs per acre, or
equivalent to 69 cents a square foot. In terms of midtown
property in Anchorage, a person is looking at a 10 percent
premium being added.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG cited the example given by
Representative Halcro, in where the owner uses [his or her
property] as a subterfuge and splits off some. He said
[Representative Halcro] might have a point, but that is entirely
[his own] point. With a larger mobile home park and a nice
parcel [of land] that is strategic enough to generate some
additional income, perhaps it is appropriate for that to be
done; however, it is extremely expensive at 69 cents a square
foot. Finding any commercial property in the state that is
above $5 or $6 dollar a square foot [is difficult], [except for
property in] downtown Anchorage and other very high-priority
parcels.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there should be an exemption based
on the size of the park or parcel, while providing an exemption
for a small operator because he is certain that in areas like
Valdez and Ketchikan, there are small parks that would qualify
under the definition.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he is concerned by the lack of
feedback from the mobile home park owners about the impacts of
the bill, particularly on smaller operators. Testimony was from
"deep pocket developers," he said, which do not represent the
state.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI pointed out that the six-months' notice is
already an alienation on a landowner's right; this will be
extended to 365 days if a person is unable to [pay
compensation].
Number 1888
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO agreed and said he shares some of the
[same] concerns regarding the rights of private land ownership.
If a large park owner has 80 units, and over the course of four
or five phases wants to carve out 10 or 12 slots that he is
going to replat or sell off, that person could make an "end run"
around this legislation, if exempted.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented that with some of the bad press
that mobile home park owners have gotten within the last year,
he wondered if it wasn't simply a planned absence, because
"they" didn't want to answer questions. He said in [a recent]
newspaper piece, it pointed out owners that don't adequately
address the health and safety needs of their tenants.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI mentioned a mobile home owner in her district
and said she believes that his property will be used for
redevelopment. He is not letting any new spaces, so as people
move on, those spaces remain empty. He has half the trailer
park [empty], and that is how he chose to treat his investment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said an unintended consequence of this
bill would be to accelerate that type of thinking; if owners are
put in a position where there is such a huge economic
disincentive for them to do it, it becomes more problematic all
the time. He said $30,000 an acre is a lot of money, and real
estate deals don't wait a year.
Number 2115
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered an amendment to exempt mobile
home parks with 12 or fewer lots and there is a provision in the
bill that says a portion [can be sold]. He referred to page 3,
line 25. He said he doesn't want to exempt the notice
provision, only the $5,000; therefore, under his amendment the
one-year notice would stay the same, but not the $5,000 for a
smaller operation.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that this could already be
done.
Number 2178
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would move to modify his
amendment to keep the six-month notice in the bill for those
under 12 units.
Number 2191
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected to the amendment because by
giving an exemption, he said, it creates a loophole.
Number 2218
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with Representative Halcro's point
and noted that the committee of next referral was the House
Judiciary Standing Committee; that committee could contemplate
the loophole and try to close it.
Number 2245
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his amendment.
Number 2259
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to move HB 11, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 11(L&C) was moved
out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
approximately 5:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|